I really, really love Antichrist, only seen a couple of his other movies (including Melancholia). With what I've heard about Nymphomaniac so far, it seems almost like he's trying to make a statement by breaking down his whole auteur vibe, or something. Whatever, Lars, you're still cute in your straw hat though.

controversial director who likes to shock......what could possibly go wrong? how can it fail? how can it not end up with criticism bout mysogyny? how can it not end up with more voyeurs going to see it?

Sat through 9 Songs and Shortbus wondering what all the fuss was about. Found 9 Songs quite brutally honest in places when the couple are breaking up (I blame him dragging her to see BRMC to be honest), so thought there was, er, artistic merit to be found there. Glad he didn't try the same technique with Coogan and Brydon in The Trip though. Shortbus felt very Carry On Existential Crisis, needed more Sid Jamesisms I thought, didn't realise how, er, gay it was. I've led a very sheltered existence.

but the executions wasn't and their acting wasn't the best. could've picked some better bands too. elbow? ffs
but yeah there's not much that handles hardcore sex well at all. really hope nympho isn't awful.

"It opens with a disclaimer stating that the director wasn’t involved in the editing – although it has been cut with his permission from the longer, Lars-approved film. You feel short-changed: whose film is it then? What am I missing? Bigger cocks? More close-ups of injured, over-exercised clitorises? Oh yes, there’s nothing coy about it."
http://www.timeout.com/london/film/nymphomaniac-part-one

“Technically the changes in the abridged version consist of an editing out of the most explicit closeups of genitals,” though such footage cannot possibly account for 90 minutes of footage (can it?), especially considering that the American version serves up a montage of roughly two dozen flaccid penises, presumably an inventory of its protagonist’s conquests. For most, four hours will be plenty, and the film doesn’t feel compromised in any way. (Different territories will reportedly see different cuts, according to local decency standards.)"
http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/film-review-lars-von-triers-nymphomaniac-1200964948/

"The longer, uncut version of the first half of Lars von Trier's two-part sexual epic "Nymphomaniac" will world premiere Out of Competition at the upcoming Berlin International Film Festival. The uncut version of "Part Two" won't premiere until later in 2014.

but I can't stand movies over 2hours for the most part because I can't sit threw a movie that long in one sitting, that's why I said 'as far as I'm concerned' included in this list of 'worst movies ever' are films such as The Godfather and Lord Of The Rings... I know I am wrong in the broader scheme of things but my personality doesn't allow me to enjoy such long films and I find it hard to revisit a film once I've begun it.

it says it's uncut by the bbfc, but is it still the pre-cut one for internation release that von trier didn't approve of? have only followed it closely enough to be confused about which version is actually being released

I saw both parts last night (with a short break in between)
I liked it a lot (I also liked antichrist and melancholia (tho I would say this is the lesser of these three)). Very interesting movie, loads of thoughts in it. I'll probably spend the next few days thinking about it, and making up some interpretations and such. As I always do with Von Trier, I cannot see them and then just forget about them. As always there is a lot of Kierkegaard in it.

If they ever release the uncensored and unabridged version I would be interested in seeing it. I found this cut very reasonable in what it showed (considering it is Lars Von Trier, that is). I might even dare to say that I found it bit too soft, considering the subject of the movie. I want to see how LVT really envisioned it. The thing about different cuts for different regions is such BS; people need to grow the fuck up and be confronted with things they don't like once in a while.

REALLY enjoyed it. Far more than I thought I would, having never seen a Von Trier film before.

Didn't feel overly long and, actually, I would say benefited from its length - Joe was as well developed a female character as I have seen in a film, I think.

Uma Thurman was a total show-stopper - loved her scene.

This may be the warped view of a 23 year old boy who grew up with porn, but the sex didn't ever seem particularly wanton - the most depraved part of the film was where Joe went to see Jamie Bell rather than [spoiler], which was far harder to watch than any of the lovely sex. What a tremendously handsome man Jamie Bell is, by the way!

As mentioned by RobbeVP, lots to dwell on (including the ending!) - lots to chat about on the way out of the cinema. Really good experience, enjoyed it a lot.

Pt 1 was almost a complete write-off for me. Basically the whole thing played for laughs, tone throughout seemed really off.
Pt 2 got good after an initial clanger and was more of the film I was expecting, and spent a good hour or so making up some ground and trying in an albeit hamfisted way to have a point, before finally falling off of a vast cliff and becoming unbearably shit LVT fare again before the end.

it was just three of them - Stellan Skarsgaard, the young female lead and another actress who had a pretty small part in the first film. Stellan was a cool dude and interesting to listen to but the two young actresses didn't have anything to say really. 'is this a feminist film?' 'i dunno LOL'
but yeah i didn't really like the film so wasn't that arsed to stick around.

I expected to enjoy the first half more than the second half but actually part II ended up intriguing me far more as I think it went considerably further in highlighting the inherent tragedy of Joe's character whilst part I was somewhat whimsical (aside from the death bed scenes..good lord).

It's hard to pick a standout performance, Gainsbourg was excellent as was Stellan Skarsgård, and the scene with Uma Thurman just oozed tension whilst also coming across as extremely authentic.

It's a shame that the sexual aspects of the film have been drummed up so much as bar one or two shots I really don't think they were /that/ explicit and in someways they were some of the least intriguing elements of the film. As Skarsgård said during the Q&A, it's not as if anyone is going to be watching the film for the erotic content.

thought most interesting aspect of it was the greek dialogue gimmick thing going on w/ gainsbourg + skarsgard. never seen a film that does that so explicitly before, thought it was pretty inventive

1st volume is too silly, too many laugh out loud bits. felt like neither lvt, the actors nor the audience (in the cinema i was in anyway) took it seriously. liked the 'chapter' with christian slater shitting himself though, found it quite affecting

2nd part more intense, only bit i found to be shocked by was the close ups of joe's arse and vagina getting done in with a cat o' ninetails. don't think it became as sad as it wanted to (possibly because of all the giggles)

resorting to exactly the kind of thing I expected it to be. Maybe the second film was thrown into relief more by the first, which zipped along and was played largely for laughs.

I didn't think that the extended Jamie Bell bits really added anything to the film, other than typing up a single plot point, and the sub-Heneke, audience-goading final scene came across as trite.

The thing that interested me the most was the utter placelessness of the film - locations, settings and accents wandered all over, mingling aspects of 1980s British mundanity, cold-war hangovers and a curious indifference to international voices that suggested a world in which the cosmopolitan is so common that it can pass without comment.

I did think that the two moments of Von Trier soap-boxing were amusingly placed: Skarsgard's character's defense of anti-zionism and how anti-zionists are labelled anti-semites was a little precious, but Joe's defense of pedophiles who don't act on their impulses was perhaps the only time that the film was brave enough to grasp for insight.

I think it was a film that, yes, is about a subject that is often seen as controversial, but a film that, in itself, isn't controversial at all. It pulled its punches and I thought it didn't really attempt to say anything. Which is fine, as the audience should be the ones to draw their own conclusions, but too often it felt like Von Trier was indulging in "posted without comment" passive aggressive trolling for effect.

i realise LVT doesn't care about it being any actual location, but even so it seemed haphazardly thrown together.
there's a lot of things about it which seem deliberately amateurish - the girls go out to be wild and he uses 'born to be wild' on the soundtrack, oy. gainsbourg or skarsgard says some half-baked bit of philosophy and the other says 'that's a bit half baked don't you think? *WINK*'. all extensions of LVT thinking that he's absolutely hilarious, i'm sure.

I mean, quite a lot of the scenes are explicit, but I didn't think any of them were gratuitous, and I don't think that it would necessarily have been controversial had they been gratuitous.

I think the lack of controversy comes mainly from the fact that the film doesn't really push any buttons - or at least, I don't think it will amongst the kind of people who will go to see this anyway.

Someone like Heneke on the other hand, can really upset his audience because he makes them think thoughts or form opinions that they don't like.

Perhaps it's more of a reflection of how blase 'we' are about nudity in films these days. Perhaps it's because 'we' are more grown up that I don't think anyone was shocked by the sight of (CGI'd) engorged vulvas and erect penises, alongside abused vulvas and flaccid penises. I don't know. One imagines that a Daily Mail reader might find the images offensive, but for me, that doesn't make it controversial in itself.

The main thing that's stuck with me is how incredibly well cast and acted it was - Stacy Martin, Uma Thurman and Jamie Bell in particular. Gainsbourg, too.

Lots more story than expected (although that was easily achieved by making it narration/storytelling/biopic-centric). Having said that, and for all the chat surrounding it, I don't really feel like it said a huge amount. That's not a criticism as such. Just an observation that it just is what it is and I feel like any critique about it would end up being more a reflection of whoever is offering the opinion than of the film. Maybe that's what LvT was aiming for? Some sort of holding-up-a-mirror thing?

Felt like it was a bit heavy handed towards the end, spelling things out a little too much. And ***SPOILER*** I have the same comment about this that I had about Melancholia - there was no need for the last couple of minutes.

Also, it was very very funny in places. Not just dark humour, either. Which is an achievement, considering the overall arc of the film(s). Although sex is pretty a funny thing, so it's right and proper that there's humour in there.

Couple of other points of order: The Five Obstructions doc is great, so see it if you can. He needs to complete the Land of Opportunities trilogy sooner rather than later.

On reflection, I wanna retract my 'no need for the last couple of minutes'. But my only explanation is that it's depressing(ly) predictable. Which kinda fits, seeing as it's the Depression Trilogy. And it's a not unreasonable reading of reality, so the problem might lie more with me than with the film?